DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite Summit Electric, Inc. v. Pepin Bros. Construction, Inc., 427 A.2d 505.

17 citing documents.

  • Lake Sunapee Protective Ass'n v. New Hampshire Wetlands Board 574 A.2d 1368 N.H. 1990
    Our standard of review of “a court-approved master’s recommendation is that the findings and rulings will be upheld unless they are unsupported by the evidence or are erroneous as a matter of law.” Claridge v. N.H. Wetlands Bd., 125 N.H. 745, 748, 485 A.2d 287, 289 (1984) (citing Summit Electric, Inc. v. Pepin Brothers Constr., Inc., 121 N.H. 203, 206, 427 A.2d 505, 507 (1981)).
  • Heaton v. Boulders Properties, Inc. 566 A.2d 1127 N.H. 1989
    Thiem v. Thomas, 119 N.H. 598, 603, 406 A.2d 115, 118 (1979) (citing Spear v. Penna, 92 N.H. 190, 27 A.2d 92 (1942)); see also Centronics Data, 129 N.H. at 696, 531 A.2d at 350 (quoting R. Zoppo Co. v. City of Dover, 124 N.H. 666, 671, 475 A.2d 12, 15 (1984)); Gosselin v. Archibald, 121 N.H. 1016, 1020, 437 A.2d 302, 306 (1981); Summit Electric, Inc. v. Pepin Brothers Const., Inc., 121 N.H. 203, 206, 427 A.2d 505, 507 (1981).
  • Desmarais v. Joy Manufacturing Co. 538 A.2d 1218 N.H. 1988
    Consistent with prior decisions of this court, moreover, we will not overturn a master’s findings and rulings “unless they are unsupported by the evidence or are erroneous as a matter of law.” Summit Electric, Inc., v. Pepin Brothers Const., Inc., 121 N.H. 203, 206, 427 A.2d 505, 507 (1981).
  • Estate of Younge v. Huysmans 506 A.2d 282 N.H. 1985
    “We will uphold a master’s findings ‘unless they are unsupported by the evidence or are erroneous as a matter of law.’” Campo v. Maloney, 122 N.H. 162, 168, 442 A.2d 997, 1001 (1982) (quoting Summit, Electric, Inc. v. Pepin Brothers Const., Inc., 121 N.H. 203, 206, 427 A.2d 505, 507 (1981)).
  • Kaminski v. Fisch 503 A.2d 784 N.H. 1985
    Claridge v. N.H. Wetlands Bd., 125 N.H. 745, 748, 485 A.2d 287, 289 (1984) (citing Summit Electric, Inc. v. Pepin *484 Brothers Const., Inc., 121 N.H. 203, 206, 427 A.2d 505, 507 (1981)).
  • Asadorian v. Asadorian 499 A.2d 1354 N.H. 1985
    The standard of review in an appeal from a master’s recommendation is that the “‘findings and rulings will be upheld unless they are unsupported by the evidence or are erroneous as a matter of law.’ We will not substitute our judgment for the master’s judgment.” Suojanen v. Tardif, 121 N.H. 1036, 1038, 437 A.2d 310, 311 (1981) (quoting Summit Electric, Inc. v. Pepin Brothers Const., *390 Inc., 121 N.H. 203, 206, 427 A.2d 505, 507 (1981)) (citation omitted).
  • Chemical Bank v. Rinden Professional Ass'n 498 A.2d 706 N.H. 1985
    We begin by noting that we will not overturn a master’s findings and rulings “unless they are unsupported by the evidence or are erroneous as a matter of law.” Summit Electric, Inc. v. Pepin Brothers Const., Inc., 121 N.H. 203, 206, 427 A.2d 505, 507 (1981).
  • Murphy v. Financial Development Corp. 495 A.2d 1245 N.H. 1985
    We will not overturn a master’s findings and rulings “unless they are unsupported by the evidence or are erroneous as a matter of law.” Summit Electric, Inc. v. Pepin Brothers Const., Inc., 121 N.H. 203, 206, 427 A.2d 505, 507 (1981).
  • Claridge v. New Hampshire Wetlands Board 485 A.2d 287 N.H. 1984
    Summit Electric, Inc. v. Pepin Brothers Const., Inc., 121 N.H. 203, 206, 427 A.2d 505, 507 (1981).
  • White v. Ford 471 A.2d 1176 N.H. 1984
    Auclair v. Bancroft, 121 N.H. 393, 395, 430 A.2d 169, 171 (1981); Summit Elec., Inc. v. Pepin Bros. Const. Inc., 121 N.H. 203, 206, 427 A.2d 505, 507 (1981).
  • Campo v. Maloney 442 A.2d 997 N.H. 1982
    We will uphold a master’s findings “unless they are unsupported by the evidence or are erroneous as a matter of law.” Summit Electric, Inc. v. Pepin Brothers Const., Inc., 121 N.H. 203, 206, 427 A.2d 505, 507 (1981).
  • New Canaan Academy, Inc. v. Town of Canaan 441 A.2d 1174 N.H. 1982
    Summit Electric, Inc. v. Pepin Brothers Const., Inc., 121 N.H. 203, 206, 427 A.2d 505, 507 (1981).
  • Suojanen v. Tardif 437 A.2d 310 N.H. 1981
    We have stated that a master’s “findings and rulings will be upheld unless they are unsupported by the evidence or are erroneous as a matter of law.” Summit Electric, Inc. v. Pepin Bros. Constr., Inc., 121 N.H. 203, 206, 427 A.2d 505, 507 (1981); Hynes v. Whitehouse, 120 N.H. 417, 421, 415 A.2d 876, 878 (1980).
  • D. M. Holden, Inc. v. Contractor's Crane Service, Inc. 435 A.2d 529 N.H. 1981
    Summit Electric, Inc. v. Pepin Brothers Const., Inc., 121 N.H. 203, 206, 427 A.2d 505, 507 (1981).
  • Meredith v. Fisher 435 A.2d 536 N.H. 1981
    “The standard of review in an appeal from a master’s recommendation is that the findings and rulings will be upheld unless they are unsupported by the evidence or are erroneous as a matter of law.” Summit Electric, Inc. v. Pepin Brothers Const., Inc., 121 N.H. 203, 206, 427 A.2d 505, 507 (1981) (citing Hynes v. Whitehouse, 120 N.H. 417, 421, 415 A.2d 876, 878 (1980) and Brown v. Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hosp., 117 N.H. 739, 742, 378 A.2d 1138, 1140 (1977)).
  • Murphy v. Bateman 433 A.2d 1330 N.H. 1981
    Summit Electric, Inc. v. Pepin Brothers Const., Inc., 121 N.H. 203, 206, 427 A.2d 505, 507 (1981); Hynes v. Whitehouse, 120 N.H. 417, 421, 415 A.2d 876, 878 (1980).
  • Town of Weare v. Estate of Paquette 434 A.2d 591 N.H. 1981
    Summit Electric, Inc. v. Pepin Brothers Const., Inc., 121 N.H. 203, 206, 427 A.2d 505, 507 (1981).